Re: [PATCH mptcp-next v3 0/5] add mptcp_subflow bpf_iter

[Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>]

Hi Geliang,

On 10/09/2024 08:30, Geliang Tang wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 06:02 +0000, MPTCP CI wrote:
>> Hi Geliang,
>>
>> Thank you for your modifications, that's great!
>>
>> But sadly, our CI spotted some issues with it when trying to build
>> it.
>>
>> You can find more details there:
>>
>>  
>> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/10786552828
>>
>> Status: failure
> 
> These errors reported by CI should be ignored:
> 
> Unable to compile mptcp source code with make C=1 net/mptcp/bpf.o:
> net/mptcp/bpf.c:215:17: warning: symbol 'bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_new'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
> Unable to compile mptcp source code with make C=1 net/mptcp/bpf.o:
> net/mptcp/bpf.c:228:42: warning: symbol 'bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_next'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
> Unable to compile mptcp source code with make C=1 net/mptcp/bpf.o:
> net/mptcp/bpf.c:243:18: warning: symbol
> 'bpf_iter_mptcp_subflow_destroy' was not declared. Should it be static?
> Unable to compile mptcp source code with make C=1 net/mptcp/bpf.o:
> net/mptcp/bpf.c:247:42: warning: symbol 'bpf_mptcp_subflow_ctx_by_pos'
> was not declared. Should it be static?

Can we not squash patch 1/5 and 3/5 together?

It is strange to add the helpers but not using them, then register them
in another patch.

Or did you split them to ease the review on BPF side?

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.